Walberg explains Head Start vote

If you've been watching TV lately, or been to a Mark Schauer campaign event, then by now you know U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg was the only "no" vote in the House education committee on continuing Head Start last year.

Tuesday morning I sat in with our paper's editorial board on a wide-ranging interview with Walberg and along with rising gas prices, the economy and healthcare, we got his take on this much-maligned vote.

His only concern was that it didn't exempt communities of faith from the hiring restrictions that other groups with Head Start classrooms must adhere to.

"It didn't allow communities of faith to hire who they wanted to hire," Walberg said. "I was called a racist several times, a bigot."

The ad, which you can see below has received more than 1,000 hits on YouTube since it was posted last week by Patriot Majority Midwest, a "527" independent political organization.

There's more after the jump...

In other words, say a Baptist or a Catholic church wanted to continue to offer its Head Start program and a Muslim or "a Wiccan from a coven in Ann Arbor" wanted to apply for a job to teach there, now it couldn't discriminate based on religious grounds anymore, or vice versa.

He said he offered an amendment that would have made that change, but it didn't get any traction.

He said he doesn't oppose Head Start, but by keeping that provision in the bill, he said religious organizations might decide it's better to get rid of Head Start.

Walberg said he didn't initiate the efforts, but was contacted by people in his district that were concerned about this provision.

It would also open all of them to lawsuits, because the Wiccan, or the Catholic or the Muslim who wasn't hired, could say it was because of their religious beliefs, he said.

"You will take away programs potentially," he said. "That's a chilling effect."

What do you think? Should Walberg be credited for taking a stand on this provision that constituents in his district said was important, knowing that it would open him up to being attacked for being against helping poor children receive a better education?

Or do you take issue with the provision and think there shouldn't be a problem with someone from another faith teaching non-religious issues in a Head Start classroom that is in a building owned by another religious group?